source_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the destructive nature ('permanently', 'IRREVERSIBLE') and the requirement for confirmation ('Requires confirm=True'), which is critical for safe usage. However, it does not detail cascading effects or permissions needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise two sentences. First sentence communicates action and permanence, second adds the crucial confirmation requirement. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. For a destructive tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention prerequisites like permissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes all parameters clearly. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'single' vs 'bulk' is already in schema descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete), resource (source(s)), and key constraint (permanent, irreversible). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like source_rename or source_add.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for permanently deleting sources but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like source_get_content or source_describe. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.